HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3053 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. The opposite party no. 2 has filed compliance affidavit, which is taken on record. Vakalatnama has been filed by Ms. Shruti Dixit, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 3, along with an affidavit for discharge of contempt notice, which are also taken on record. 2. The present contempt application has been preferred against the non- compliance of the interim order dated 12.08.2025, passed in A-227 No. 4778 of 2025. The relevant extract of the interim order is quoted hereinbelow:- " As an interim measure, it is provided that no construction shall be raised by either of the parties on plot No. 749 as described in paragraph-1 of the plaint. However, it is also clarified that this court has not injuncted the respondents in so far as their plot no. 739 is concerned." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is raising construction on plot no. 749, which is against the interim order dated 12.08.2025, passed in A-227 No. 4778 of 2025. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, on the basis of averment made in the compliance affidavit, has submitted that whatever construction is being raised, it is on plot no. 739 for which there is no restraint order passed by the writ court and it is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 is not raising any construction on plot no. 749. 5. Ms. Shruti Dixit, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 has submitted that the opposite party no. 3 has been wrongly arrayed as an opposite party in the present case for the reason that the matter pertains to urban area whereas the opposite party no. 3 is posted in rural area and he has nothing to do with the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shishir Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vipul Seth And Another .....Applicant(s) Smt. Era Srivastava Chairman Nagar Palika Parishad, Lakhimpur Kheri And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) said order or construction made by opposite party no. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that construction is being raised on plot no. 749 and not on plot no. 739. 7. Such disputed question of fact, after an affidavit given by opposite party no. 2, cannot be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings particularly, when the writ petition is still pending. 8. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application has become infructuous after the statement given on oath by opposite party no. 2 that the construction is being raised on plot on 739 and not plot no. 749. Thus, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous. 9. Notices, if any, stand discharged. November 27, 2025 DiVYa CAPL No. 3053 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench